Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse (as regards each other), under which its principles have been largely superseded.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse (as regards each other), under which its principles have been largely superseded. (en)
|
name
| - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
subsequent actions
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
caption
| - The derelict Vincent Farmhouse (en)
|
citations
| - [1990] 1 All ER 1111 (en)
- [1990] 2 WLR 867 (en)
- [1990] UKHL 14 (en)
- [1991] 1 AC 107 (en)
|
court
| |
full name
| - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and another (en)
|
judges
| |
keywords
| - Constructive trust in equity; actual occupation as overriding interest under the land registration acts; no direct financial contribution; sole legal ownership; no co-ownership promises or agreement; contribution by renovation works (en)
|
has abstract
| - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse (as regards each other), under which its principles have been largely superseded. The case stood for the proposition that a no-owning cohabitee contributing to the cost of running a house and, even, quite common renovations to a derelict property did not, in itself, create a beneficial interest in that person's favour. All of the reasoning of the judgment was delivered Lord Bridge, receiving four concurrences from the other judges who had read his judgment in advance. Its strict limits on equity flowing to a non-owning partner were doubted in Stack v Dowden, in which the final court of appeal sitting in 2007 said "the law has moved on". In the lower court it dealt with a follow-on aspect of finding — instead — a valid contribution: the question of whether, in a repossession scenario the pre-purchase home improver who is not the borrower nor the legal owner (in this case it was the spouse/partner of the borrower) is in "actual occupation". If so that would override and outrank the lender's interests in the property. That court's panel found (2-1) that Rosset's renovation works during the school day, including on the date of making of the mortgage/secured overdraft, did amount to actual occupation. (en)
|
concurring
| |
date decided
| |
decision by
| |
prior actions
| - Court of Appeal overturned this. Both courts saw as fit to see an equitable contribution leading to an "implied common intention" interest of Mrs Rosset. (en)
- High Court before HHJ Scarlett: Bank succeeded in showing Rosset not in actual occupation on date of charge (en)
|
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |